SHOULD ANARCHISTS VOTE ?

To vote or not to vote, that is the question. To make this question a bit easier let's restrict it to voting in 'political elections' ie local, state/provincial or national. No one should (but I'm sure some will) doubt that, if anarchists take part in other organizations (unions, community groups, etc.) where voting is part of normal procedure, they should vote within these groups. The big question is what positions of responsibility anarchists should act in in such groupings. Leave that aside for the moment. Let's also leave aside the question of how decisions should be reached in an anarchist organization. The big debating point there is voting versus consensus. The latter is actually quite great provided that 1)the group is small and intends to stay that way, 2)the group is made up of personal friends, 3)there is basically nothing to decide as the group is of one general opinion anyways, 4)whatever decision the group makes doesn't matter much anyways and MOST IMPORTANTLY 5)the group contains absolutely NO, none, nada people who think that making decisions this way has any significance whatsoever. They should, preferably have never heard the word "consensus" in their lives. As I said, if all of these conditions are fulfilled then consensus is great. If only one condition is not met, especially the latter where those with a certain type of personal ethics disguised as politics make life intolerable for others, then it is destructive and very painful for anyone who has to endure their "righteous presence".

But...political elections ?? The "anarchist general line" has usually been that elections should be boycotted. Anarchists have often actually run 'Don't Vote' campaigns, and I've helped with a few of these in the past myself. There are, however, exceptions. Proudhon was actually a Deputy in the French Assembly before he came to a stricter anti-political point of view. In our own time the Communalist/Social Ecologist followers of Murray Bookchin made voting in municipal elections pretty well the key point of their strategy. There are actually many others, but the most telling one is the Spanish anarchists in the CNT and FAI in early 1936 when they deliberately "muted" their traditional anti-electoral stand in order that the Popular Front would win the election. I have read different versions of the actual organizational responsibility of this decision. One version says that the CNT carried out the low key campaign. The other said that the responsibility was passed on to the FAI. They had their reasons, most particularly the hope of release for thousands of political prisoners should the popular front win. In any case this may have been an unique situation, one where anarchists were influential enough so that their decision about whether to vote or not (or whether to tone down their rhetoric so that-wink,wink,nudge,nudge many would vote) actually made a significant difference. There is certainly no country in the world today where whatever anarchists say or don't say will make a tinker's damn to the results of an election. That's a reality, and recognizing reality is the first step to changing it.

Which brings me to some observations of 'votophobia'. The first observation is that voting or not voting is not a principle; it is a means to an end. Whatever their opponents may think of them anarchists are, by and large, a very moralistic bunch, and they far too often confuse means with ends. As a matter of fact that confusion is part and parcel of standard anarchist theory, and it has great merit- up to a point. The means very much influence the end result, and it is unrealistic to expect any political party, reformist or revolutionary, to usher in the sort of democratic, egalitarian, decentralized society that anarchists want. That being said there is a vast ocean of difference between the two poles of total stasis and total change. Some outcomes are more desirable than others. What anarchists far too often fail to do, however, is ask the hard question: "what do we actually hope to accomplish by publicly urging people not to vote ?" There is, of course, a trend in anarchism, most prevalent in the USA, which views any hard questions as something akin to treachery, and they do their damnedest to reply to such in as abusive and pseudo-intellectual form as they can muster.

In the presence of a large, dynamic and influential anarchist organization(s) with a well thought out course of action and the influence to at least carry out some of its plans there is actually an alternative that can be offered to the question from John Q. Sceptic, "What do you have as an alternative ?". Outside of Spain, and even there to a great degree there is no such organization on Earth today. The offer of benefiting from an identification with the anarchist movements, such as they are, is plainly pretty skimpy fair, and it's best that some of the more narcissistic elements get over their self love enough to recognize the absurdity of this 'alternative'. An organization can use an anti-electoral campaign to offer their own plan of action, but a vague subculture can not. All that it has to offer is its own proselytism. All that I can say to this is that we live in a world where at least images are transmitted to most of the world's population. If a certain anarchist subculture was inherently so much more attractive than ordinary life well then we would all be walking around with tongue piercings and eating nothing but vegan food today. As a matter of fact identifying anarchism with a subculture has more minuses than it does pluses. It recruits those who want such identities, but it also repells those who have no need of such crutches.

But back to 'voting'. What do we hope to accomplish by mounting a 'Don't Vote' campaign ? If we are realistic the answer is obviously "very little". If such campaigns are carried out in the absence of a legitimate anarchist organization, an alternative to dependence on political parties and at least the bare bones of a realistic 'plan' then the proper answer is "nothing". In such situations one is reduced to rather petty considerations ie whether an anti-voting campaign can "recruit" members for an organization or whether it can get publicity for same. The idea of recruiting 'members' to a vague, and often repulsive, subculture is absurd. That's best done by social contact in the non-political venues in which things properly belong.

So where do I stand today ? Presently I don't see the utility of mounting anti-election campaigns in either my own country, the USA or most of Europe. I'm inclined to view such things via the old commie label of "diversionary". There may indeed be situations where such campaigns are appropriate, especially as recruiting devices, but I haven't seen such in the last little while. As somebody who, from habit and inclination, takes a 'long view' I think that elections should basically be ignored. This wasn't my opinion years ago. It is my opinion now. If anarchism is going to be a potent reality it has a long road ahead of it, of building at the base. I see little reason to put effort into campaigns that cannot have any effect because of our present small numbers. If anarchism is ever a serious competitor for the 'public mind', which it is not today, then other, more Machiavellian considerations might come into play. I personally, however, don't expect to see such a situation in my lifetime, except perhaps in Spain.

DEFINING SUBCULTURES:

The poll 'What Do You Think of Subcultures ?' is now closed, and the results were, perhaps expectantly, ambiguous. Perhaps I share this ambiguity, despite my long standing (decades !!!!) antipathy to self-styled "radical" subcultures here in Canada (actually usually "imported without value added processing" from the USA).

What exactly is a subculture ? First of all, I guess, it is obviously a "culture" that is a minority in the geographical location where it exists. A subculture may or may not, have political implications. Biker subculture, for instance, has few, if any, political implications (despite some bizarre attempts to say that it does...in my living memory from both the left and the right). Other subcultures, for instance 'gay subculture' or the subcultures of various ethnic groups may have political implications...or they may not. Typically(but not always) such subcultures have "political demands" that may lead to social tension, but which can be, on the whole, satisfied without any major political or social change. Their demands are almost inevitably what Molly would define with the old fashioned word "progressive", but, in the end, these subcultures end up making up part of a dynamic mosaic that may enrich life in their societies but do little to change it beyond the limited horizons of their participants. Such subcultures have a pretty well inevitable dynamic in that they are the creation of people who self-identify as "oppressed" and who, in reaction, posit the idea that they are not just equal to but actually superior to others outside of the group. Fine and dandy, and I'll return to this later, but keep the following fact in mind. There are other such subcultures beyond the sort that Molly might have some sympathy with. These include those such as neo-Nazi, neo-fascist and 'white nationalist' groups whose dynamics are exactly the same as those with which I personally sympathize. There are factions within the sort of "identity politics" that might have some justification that are equally ugly as the fascists are. No doubt there are 'moderate' "white nationalists" with which I am unfamiliar (more or less because such people are the sort that translate their feelings into effective political action as the right wing parties have recently done in the European elections). Maybe I simply have little interest in following their twists and turns. The problem is that I cannot see, for the life of me, a reasonable way to distinguish the "nuts of the right" from the "nuts of the left". As to relying on "oppression" as an objective category the "nuts of the right" seem to fish in a sea of "failures in life" whose circumstances are, on average, lower in an economic and social sense than those of the average minority group.

So well yeah, subcultures are obviously, by definition, minority phenomena. They have to be distinguished, however, from other things that are similar such as "fads" and "enthusiasms". A "fad" can be distinguished by its very limited nature. Clothing fashions are an obvious example. The ever changeable nature of the fashion industry is perhaps the premier example of effective marketing, and has no implications beyond the bottom line of the companies involved. It's a "fad", just as the use of certain expressions in language ("like", "get a life", "mega" "dot... whatever", etc.) are. Then there are what I call "enthusiasms". These are typical of the social phenomenon called "fandom". There are dozens of examples. Music fandom. Comic fandom. Sci-Fi fandom. Fantasy fandom. The list could go on and on. Some of these memes may indeed shade into the category of "subculture", but they have to acquire particular characteristics to do so, especially a broadening of their frame of reference to include not just an enthusiasm for a particular product of mass culture but to the adoption of a whole set of other behaviors (affectations ?) that serve to identify the participant as an identifiable member of the group.

That's IT , patient reader, subcultures can be defined as the adoption by groups of people of a set of behaviors that distinguish the practitioners from the general society. Not just a choice of clothes. Not just a choice of language in the sense of common expressions. Not just a choice of favoured leisure activities (yoga versus baseball maybe ?). Sometimes not just a choice of what type of sex is "correct". Sometimes not just a choice of what is ethical or not. Sometimes not just a judgement about what sort of work (if any) is desirable. The list could go on endlessly. The point is that the adherent of a subculture accepts a "package", not just one or the other fad. The exceptions prove the rule. I know of a few adherents of "punk" who are sports fans, but very few. Their preferred mode of passive consumption is music events, either concerts or raves. I have also met ancient hippies and 'greenies'(and their imitators) who don't have a sympathy for half baked new age mysticism, but they are also the exception.

Here is where we get to the meat of the subject. There is no doubt that the traditional socialist movement (and the anarchist movement in countries where it was predominant such as Spain) saw the importance of a unique "culture" of the "oppressed". The difference is that such efforts were directed towards a culture that was, in many ways, already existing, and, most importantly, was the culture of what was seen as the majority of the population. At their best so-called radical subcultures adopt already existing cultural traditions that might potentially be majoritarian. At their worst such subcultures deliberately search for matters of "difference" to reinforce their self-perception as "superior" to those outside of the circle. In this way they imitate one of the great faults of subcultures based on things such as ethnic difference ie they search for a way to project the illusion of superiority. This is really and truly great for the self satisfaction of the participants of the so-called "movement". Looking at the larger picture, however, if the subculture claims political significance it is really and truly DEADLY. It is a rock solid guarantee of ineffectiveness. To be honest I'd have to struggle to conceive of anything beyond a commitment to terrorist methods that is so thoroughly guaranteed to "cut one's own throat" as such an opinion (or more commonly unthought-out assumption).

So there I stand. In the end anybody who wants to take anarchism seriously rather than as an 'add-on' to some sort of subcultural identity has to confront the question of effectiveness and has to choose. The matter may be made easier by the fact that the vast majority of subcultural adherents do eventually grow up and shed the fads of their youth. Hopefully anarchism will not be reduced to the status of a nose-ring that you will eventually see as pure silliness.